The Twin Branches
>
As with the rest of the Christian Bible, the stories of the crucifixion
rest in confusion and purposeful corruption. For example, in John's gospel
the Crucifixion happened on the day before Passover; in Mark, Luke and
Matthew, it happened on the day after. Although it seems that the Sanhedrin
meets at night to judge Jesus, the Sanhedrin was expressly forbidden at the
time to meet at night or on the Passover. Also contrary to what is said in
the Bible, the Sanhedrin were able to pass death sentences on Jewish
citizens. There was also no known custom of freeing a prisoner at that time
of year to celebrate anything. Thus the offer to liberate Jesus or Barabbas
is pure fiction. Who wrote these gospels? Who was responsible for the
changes? Many of us have memories of being a party to such thing in past
lives, and do not always feel happy about what it was we have done, but now
it's time to set the record straight.
> So much of Christianity and its belief in a divine Savior rests on the
event of the Crucifixion, and much of the blame for this event has been
shifted away from the Romans, the powerful oppressors of the time, and put
squarely onto the Jews. As long as the Romans were in power, nothing could
have been written to anger them or the retribution would have been swift and
merciless. This is one of the reasons for the writers of the day using the
Essene coding system. During war, secrecy is needed, and have no doubts, the
'Holy Land' was at war at that time, not only with the Romans, but with
itself as well.
> The power of the Unseen God was throughout the land and everyone wanted to
be the chosen group to control it. Preparations were being made for the
coming of the two messiahs, and there was an air that things would soon
change. Those writing for a Greek, Roman, or Arabic audience had different
agenda to fulfill. The early Christian authors wanted to separate themselves
from the Jewish masses and old Jewish traditions-they were now 'Christians'.
> Remember here, too, that these four gospels were chosen for the final
version of the Bible to the exclusion of so many others. They were chosen by
a Rome-centered church, and approved through various councils at a time when
Rome wanted to usurp the power base of Lucifer in Yahweh from the Jews and
center it squarely in the new Christian religion headquartered in Rome. This
Roman orthodoxy rests essentially on the books of the New Testament.
> It was for this reason that as Christianity grew and spread, Jesus became
less and less a Jew, and more and more a Christian. Therefore it was all
right to blame the Jews. As Gardner says,
> "Everything in the Bible says that Jesus was the King of the Jews. "And
Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus response correctly
translated is: "Thou hast spoken correctly." The Gospels were composed for a
Greco-Roman audience, and the role of the Romans in Jesus' trial and
execution had to be whitewashed and presented as sympathetically as
possible."
> Crucifixion was an execution reserved specifically and exclusively for
enemies of Rome, just as Spartacus and his rebellious slaves were an enemy
of Rome and had therefore been crucified. If Jesus was crucified, it means
he cannot have been as apolitical as the Gospels seek to make him out. In
fact, only the fourth gospel, that of John, seems to have been based on any
kind of actual eye-witness account of the Crucifixion. And contrary to most
Christians' assumptions, none of the Gospels were written by the Apostles
themselves.
> The events on the Cross certainly have their oddities. For instance, no
sooner does Jesus inhale the vinegar on the sponge (what should have for all
intent and purpose been a restorative) than he gives up the ghost. This
would lead one to suspect that what was on the sponge was more likely some
kind of drug to make it appear as though he had died, rather than any kind
of restorative.
> The events that happened after the Crucifixion were also odd. According to
Roman Law of the time, a crucified man was denied all burial, yet in the
Bible, Pilate is quick to give his body over to Joseph of Arimathea for
exactly that purpose. This clearly signifies to many researchers that their
was evidence of some sort of collusion. In the original Gospel of Mark
written in Greek, Joseph asks for what is correctly translated as the
"living body" of Jesus. Pilate, however, grants him what he believes to be
the "dead body" of Jesus.
> Although mentioned by the Bishop of Antioch as early as AD180, a surviving
copy of the Gospel of Peter was only first located in a valley of the upper
Nile in 1886. The fact that in it, Joseph of Arimathea turns out to be a
close friend of Pontius Pilate may suggest why it had not been 'found'
before then. If this is true, it also points to the likelihood of a
fraudulent Crucifixion.
> The tomb in which Jesus was buried, according to The Gospel of Peter, lay
in a place called "the Garden of Joseph," which would correctly attribute
the burial tomb as belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. The Gospel also
interprets Jesus' last words on the cross as the particularly striking, "My
power, my power, why hast thou forsaken me?"
> It is now wonder then that modern authorities agree that Jesus, quite
unabashedly, modeled and perhaps even contrived his life in accordance with
the prophecies heralding the coming of a Messiah, and this included the
crucifixion.
> In The Heresiarchs of the Gnostic Writings, Basilides, an Alexandrian
scholar writing between AD 120 and 130, claimed that the Crucifixion was a
fraud, that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that a substitute- Simon of
Cyrene-took his place instead. As late as the seventh century the Koran also
maintained precisely this same argument.
> In the Nag Hammadi scroll, The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, one of
the so-called Gnostic Gospels composed for an Egyptian audience rather than
a Roman one, it explains that there was a substitution made for at least one
of the three victims of the Crucifixion. With regard to this substitution it
mentions Simon the Cyrene as the substitute. It also mentions that Jesus did
not die on the Cross as presumed, so the substitution apparently succeeded.
Jesus is then quoted as saying after the event, "As for my death-which was
real enough to them-it was real to them because of their own incomprehension
and blindness. . . And I was laughing at their ignorance."
>
> Excerpted from "Where Were You Before The Tree of Life?"
> http://4truthseekers.com/treeoflifeThe Twin Branches
>
> As with the rest of the Christian Bible, the stories of the crucifixion
rest in confusion and purposeful corruption. For example, in John's gospel
the Crucifixion happened on the day before Passover; in Mark, Luke and
Matthew, it happened on the day after. Although it seems that the Sanhedrin
meets at night to judge Jesus, the Sanhedrin was expressly forbidden at the
time to meet at night or on the Passover. Also contrary to what is said in
the Bible, the Sanhedrin were able to pass death sentences on Jewish
citizens. There was also no known custom of freeing a prisoner at that time
of year to celebrate anything. Thus the offer to liberate Jesus or Barabbas
is pure fiction. Who wrote these gospels? Who was responsible for the
changes? Many of us have memories of being a party to such thing in past
lives, and do not always feel happy about what it was we have done, but now
it's time to set the record straight.
> So much of Christianity and its belief in a divine Savior rests on the
event of the Crucifixion, and much of the blame for this event has been
shifted away from the Romans, the powerful oppressors of the time, and put
squarely onto the Jews. As long as the Romans were in power, nothing could
have been written to anger them or the retribution would have been swift and
merciless. This is one of the reasons for the writers of the day using the
Essene coding system. During war, secrecy is needed, and have no doubts, the
'Holy Land' was at war at that time, not only with the Romans, but with
itself as well.
> The power of the Unseen God was throughout the land and everyone wanted to
be the chosen group to control it. Preparations were being made for the
coming of the two messiahs, and there was an air that things would soon
change. Those writing for a Greek, Roman, or Arabic audience had different
agenda to fulfill. The early Christian authors wanted to separate themselves
from the Jewish masses and old Jewish traditions-they were now 'Christians'.
> Remember here, too, that these four gospels were chosen for the final
version of the Bible to the exclusion of so many others. They were chosen by
a Rome-centered church, and approved through various councils at a time when
Rome wanted to usurp the power base of Lucifer in Yahweh from the Jews and
center it squarely in the new Christian religion headquartered in Rome. This
Roman orthodoxy rests essentially on the books of the New Testament.
> It was for this reason that as Christianity grew and spread, Jesus became
less and less a Jew, and more and more a Christian. Therefore it was all
right to blame the Jews. As Gardner says,
> "Everything in the Bible says that Jesus was the King of the Jews. "And
Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus response correctly
translated is: "Thou hast spoken correctly." The Gospels were composed for a
Greco-Roman audience, and the role of the Romans in Jesus' trial and
execution had to be whitewashed and presented as sympathetically as
possible."
> Crucifixion was an execution reserved specifically and exclusively for
enemies of Rome, just as Spartacus and his rebellious slaves were an enemy
of Rome and had therefore been crucified. If Jesus was crucified, it means
he cannot have been as apolitical as the Gospels seek to make him out. In
fact, only the fourth gospel, that of John, seems to have been based on any
kind of actual eye-witness account of the Crucifixion. And contrary to most
Christians' assumptions, none of the Gospels were written by the Apostles
themselves.
> The events on the Cross certainly have their oddities. For instance, no
sooner does Jesus inhale the vinegar on the sponge (what should have for all
intent and purpose been a restorative) than he gives up the ghost. This
would lead one to suspect that what was on the sponge was more likely some
kind of drug to make it appear as though he had died, rather than any kind
of restorative.
> The events that happened after the Crucifixion were also odd. According to
Roman Law of the time, a crucified man was denied all burial, yet in the
Bible, Pilate is quick to give his body over to Joseph of Arimathea for
exactly that purpose. This clearly signifies to many researchers that their
was evidence of some sort of collusion. In the original Gospel of Mark
written in Greek, Joseph asks for what is correctly translated as the
"living body" of Jesus. Pilate, however, grants him what he believes to be
the "dead body" of Jesus.
> Although mentioned by the Bishop of Antioch as early as AD180, a surviving
copy of the Gospel of Peter was only first located in a valley of the upper
Nile in 1886. The fact that in it, Joseph of Arimathea turns out to be a
close friend of Pontius Pilate may suggest why it had not been 'found'
before then. If this is true, it also points to the likelihood of a
fraudulent Crucifixion.
> The tomb in which Jesus was buried, according to The Gospel of Peter, lay
in a place called "the Garden of Joseph," which would correctly attribute
the burial tomb as belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. The Gospel also
interprets Jesus' last words on the cross as the particularly striking, "My
power, my power, why hast thou forsaken me?"
> It is now wonder then that modern authorities agree that Jesus, quite
unabashedly, modeled and perhaps even contrived his life in accordance with
the prophecies heralding the coming of a Messiah, and this included the
crucifixion.
> In The Heresiarchs of the Gnostic Writings, Basilides, an Alexandrian
scholar writing between AD 120 and 130, claimed that the Crucifixion was a
fraud, that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that a substitute- Simon of
Cyrene-took his place instead. As late as the seventh century the Koran also
maintained precisely this same argument.
> In the Nag Hammadi scroll, The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, one of
the so-called Gnostic Gospels composed for an Egyptian audience rather than
a Roman one, it explains that there was a substitution made for at least one
of the three victims of the Crucifixion. With regard to this substitution it
mentions Simon the Cyrene as the substitute. It also mentions that Jesus did
not die on the Cross as presumed, so the substitution apparently succeeded.
Jesus is then quoted as saying after the event, "As for my death-which was
real enough to them-it was real to them because of their own incomprehension
and blindness. . . And I was laughing at their ignorance."
>
> Excerpted from "Where Were You Before The Tree of Life?"
> http://4truthseekers.com/treeoflife